Judge Orders Limewire To Shut Down; Limewire Pretends It Can Still Exist

from the yeah,-ok dept

This is hardly a surprise, given the earlier ruling, but the judge in the Limewire case has now ruled in favor of the RIAA that Limewire needs to shut down "the searching, downloading, uploading, file trading and/or file distribution functionality, and/or all functionality." Basically, all of the functionality. Amusingly, Limewire is pretending it can still function without any... er... functions:

An important point of clarification, LimeWire is not “shutting down”, in specific regarding our software, we are compelled to use our best efforts cease support and distribution of the file-sharing software, along with increased filtering. And, that is what we are doing.

Of course, we've seen similar file sharing apps make similar claims when the judge's hammer came down, and they all went away. Of course, it's not like this actually means anything, other than the fact that people who want to file share have already moved on to other apps and services (mostly overseas) that are even less likely and less willing to work with the recording industry, and which will be that much harder to shut down. One by one, the RIAA has killed off the few firms that actually had an interest in trying to work with the industry, so everyone has gone to the groups that want nothing to do with the RIAA in any format.

Well, because its a distributed P2P network, theres no reason why that network can be shut down, as other clients could access it, and unless you download a new client that prevents you from transferring those files around. unless theres some way that limewire can push down system changes without your say-so, which is kinda freaky if it can...

Governments around the world are tightening the noose on Internet users in what appears like a coordinated effort against potential copyright infringement. ACTA is an obvious case of such a coordinated effort, but it seems to go much further than that as a number of countries bend over backwards to cater to the likes of RIAA and the MPAA: Denmark and its secret three-strikes negotiations, France and its three-strikes law (HADOPI), South Korea and its one-strike policy, COICA in the US Senate, and plenty of lousy decisions by US and other judges.

It seems to me there's a conspiracy afoot, with wealthy corporations as the main conspirators. The draconian policies currently being instituted would not survive the scrutiny of governments that actually cared about their citizens' rights. As a citizen I feel as if whatever rights I enjoy are offered only at the mercy of the government. It would appear that governments have decided to place corporate interests above those of the people, and there's very little the people can do about it.

There are those who take pride in democracy, but it's clear to me that even in a democracy the public is largely at the mercy of those with the power to influence our leaders and manipulate our institutions. We are many, but we have no power.

Re: Re: Sorry Mike

And about torrents...as long as seeds exist, it's just a matter of distributing the .torrent files, which, btw, is incredibly simple given that they are minuscule. Someone could just zip a bazillion of them an put them in rapidshare or something similar.

Or better yet, seed a torrent that consists of a bazillion .torrent files. Now THAT case would be fun to watch.

So what if Limewire shuts down. Ever heard of Frostwire? These companies are so out of touch with out technology works. And what if the Frostwire project some how gets sued? Create yet another branch. After all, it is open source.

They're fighting a hydra.

With each slash of the blade, a head falls to the ground and on the bloody stump, grows two more heads in its place. They don't realize that the effort they put into taking out these networks only serves to fans the flames and spread the P2P culture to more people. They continue with these fruitless efforts because they aren't thinking rationally. So how can you think rationally when they're not thinking rationally?

Don't know what to say.
I don't use Limewire it doesn't affect me since I don't download movies or music or books, and I still am not buying what the industry is selling so I don't really see the point or the importance.

There is no law that will make me buy anything from the creepy people from the IP camp.

:)

Not a f'ing dime to those people. Now what they will do about it? pass a law forcing me to buy something? I would love to see that happen just to watch how people would react.

Limewire is still working here.
It's based on Gnutella - an open source network - meaning that shutting down the program is one thing, shutting down the servers and ensuring nobody can access them is quite another.

"Not a f'ing dime to those people. Now what they will do about it? pass a law forcing me to buy something? I would love to see that happen just to watch how people would react."

The fact that they continue insisting on their dubious loss figures only shows their faulty expectations of perpetual revenue. They contemptuously see us as nothing more than units of economic outflow. Should we do otherwise they will not hesitate to use force or subversion to ensure that the tithes are filled.

Re: Re: Re: Sorry Mike

Isn't that what happened when TPB copped that unfavourable court ruling? I recall someone downloaded the entire site and made a meta-torrent out of all the torrents, thus negating any chance of shutting the site down.

Re: Sorry Mike

I know how sad you must be about this, given your contempt towards any initiative to protect creators' rights.

Huh? Not sad at all. Pointed out that it's no surprise at all. I've never used Limewire (never even seen it), and I don't use file sharing programs at all. Doesn't make me sad.

Just reminds me how the RIAA keeps shutting out the companies who *want* to help them deal with the issue constructively.

And I'm 100% in favor of creators making more money. That's why I spend so much time showing examples, and explaining how they can do better, so don't give me any bullshit about me being against creator's rights.

Re: Prohibition

Missing the point much?

The problems of prohibition had absolutely to do with what the law intended, but how the people responded to it. You think it would be any different if they'd said "Okay, you can drink, but only on Sundays"?

And unlike "any other law enforcement", you're not dealing with a minor percentage of the populace. Whoop-dee-doo, you deterred a few pirates. Too bad there are millions of people world-wide infringing on copyright, with numbers constantly rising.

Re:

actually I think they do use some kind of central server / client set up as I tried to use my limewire client today after reading another article about this it would not connect at all so effectivly limewire is dead at this point-

Re: Re: Re: Sorry Mike

Word has it that there are a TON of nice days ahead in the next few months.

If the past year is any indication, then the "nice days" will be horrible legislation that infringes on free speech rights and prevents fans from buying music.

Of course, this is all being implemented by major labels and publishers, so those who aren't with one of the Big Four (probably Big Three within a year) won't be saddled with this nonsense.

The result will be fans who are alienated from major labels, who will then turn to indie artists that aren't dickwads.

So, yeah, "there are a TON of nice days ahead in the next few months." Because in the next few months, major labels will lose, and actual musicians (and many indie labels) will be allowed to compete in the marketplace again... and win.

I can't wait. Pity that many thousands of fans will be driven into debtor's prison in the meantime.

*sigh*

This makes me sad...not for the RIAA or the music industry. I feel bad for the artists who are locked into an antiquated system and who often can't explore alternative revenue streams.

I'm all for the artists getting paid (I'm a digital artist myself, money is nice) but, this is a massive exercise in futility. Anything that can be made digitally can be copied digitally. Face it. And anything that can be digitally copied, can be shared. These are facts of modern life. These folk (and some of the posters on here) need to stop pretending that it is even possible to eliminate piracy.

Rather than be idiots and try to empty the ocean with a spoon the companies should find a way to exploit the pirates. (which would be a more fitting justice than all these silly lawsuits)

The process is not hard to understand, it's just that some people are so locked into thinking in certain outmoded business models they condemn themselves to not only loosing revenues that could be generated by the piracy, but, also all the lawyers fees.

These things are not hard to understand, unless you don't want to understand.

Re: Re: Sorry Mike

You don't use file sharing programs at all? But...don't you use a web browser at the very least? It gets the server to share files with you the client.
In the future at least say this mouthful "Computer applications that share digital content between server/client or client/client or peer-to-peer that are often used to infringe copyright but are not and should not themselves be illegal" whenever you want to say you don't use the likes of Limewire.

Re: Re: Sorry Mike

Just reminds me how the RIAA keeps shutting out the companies who *want* to help them deal with the issue constructively.

Indeed... I remember the legal wranglings and collective apoplexy in the music industry when Apple first set up iTunes and had the temerity to *gasp* sell tracks from albums singly for only 79p!!!!!!!
That was touch-and-go as I recall and look how much money and legal muscle Apple have.

Re: Re: Re: Sorry Mike

Great point.

Also, Mike, do you use Windows? Because it has a built-in file sharing function too. You can designate a folder on your hard disk drive as shared and it will be available to your peers. MacOS X and Linux also both have something similar and are compatible with the Windows way of file sharing, of course.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

generally, it is information noted down in such a way that it can be readily accessed later to confirm or deny claims made regarding the event recorded, or to report events to those who were not there.

1. Why can't you people spell? Seriously. It's LOSING. Loose is what pants get. Or in most of your cases, morals.

2. Piracy has ruined music. It costs tons of money to tour. Ripping off music takes away one of the only sources of revenue bands had and now that's gone. People now don't have the time to create or tour because they're scrambling to find a job to feed themselves.

Re:

Hey, that looks like a fun game! I can make sweeping assumptive statements with no basis in fact, too!

1. Loose is only what morals get, unless you're JPJ and have none. Oh, I bet he wears a skirt, too! No pants, just knickers!

2. Music has ruined culture! Ripping off the public domain is a crime against our rights, a form of legal piracy perpetrated by the gov't at the behest, and financial backing of, the entertainment industries.

If you've railed against infringement as if it were analogous to theft, you're part of the problem.

Re:

Yeah! Booooooo! Hissss!!! Boooo! He's behiiiiind you!

Sure it costs tons on money to tour if you want a stadium-size venue, tons of lights, visual effects, toadies etc. On the other hand it costs very little to start by putting all your instruments in the back of a van and do pub gigs. So what's your point? Musicians do both and much in between depanding how successful they are.

Oh and on re-reading the comments to far, not one has said illegal downloading is good, just suggested that with it so universal a King Canute approach to dealing with it is unlikely to be successful.

" it costs very little to start by putting all your instruments in the back of a van and do pub gigs. " yeah cuz gas is free.

What a moron.

All day long, all you leeches do here is try to rationalize the fact that you rip off musicians. Everyone knows what you're doing and that you're too cowardly to admit it. So I'll keep coming here to remind people what's true and what are the usual bullshit excuses you freetards dream up.

Re:

Re:

yeah cuz gas is free.

Oh RIGHT I see now, so if you actually have to INVEST money before people give you theirs that's bad. Clearly that's where's I've been going wrong all these years, I should simply have sent a letter to everyone saying "send me money". Oh, no, wait that'd cost me postage, I can't do that.

Re:

"""Ripping off music takes away one of the only sources of revenue bands had and now that's gone. People now don't have the time to create or tour because they're scrambling to find a job to feed themselves."""

You do realize that artists make/made little or no money from actual "record" sales anyway, right? That your corporate masters rob them blind at every step, including double and triple payback on those million dollar contracts that they tout so loudly?

pfft....

John Paul Jones,

The cat is already out of the bag... trying to stuff it back in is pointless.... it has been tried with records, tapes, plastic disks, vcr's, zerox machines, etc... Each time, the people with the most to lose complained the loudest, and each time the industry ended up just adapting.... has been this way since time began, and will continue till the end of days.... progress is painful, you can either fight it and die, or adapt and thrive... it's your choice....

Re:

Re: Sorry Mike

I modded you as funny, as I think you are a joke.

Artists can use those same systems that the "pirates" are using, too. And by slamming the door on these distribution networks, they are in essence closing the doors for fledgling artists. But you don't care about that, as long as you can worship your 50cents, your Lady Gagas, and your next one-hit-wonders.
Meanwhile the rest of the world mourns the loss of yet another venue for artists to promote their works to.

Re:

2. Corporate greed has ruined music. The music label execs expect the same kinds of profits that they were enjoying a few years ago. Meanwhile they don't pay jack to the artist using creative accounting and on the basis that the band owes them for (barely there) promotion, unless (s)he's a well-known one.

FTFY

btw, can you offer me ANY proof how in the face of piracy, people have stopped creating?

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The RIAA did not decide to pursue these lawsuits. It was decided by certain of its members.

Even the most dyed-in-the-wool attorneys who keep trying to portray these lawsuits as RIAA v. Defendant, when pressed to be accurate, concede that the RIAA is not a party, could never be a party under the circumstances, and that the real decision makers are the individual rights holders.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Contrary to your post, I am well aware of the role played by the RIAA as contrasted with the role played by each of its members. You can vilify the RIAA, the MPAA, the BSA, etc. all you want, but it does not change the fact they do not set policy. They merely reflect the policy adopted by its members.

I am currently a member of the ABA and the AIPLA, and at various times have been associated with the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), the AIAA, and other lesser known industry associations. None of them have ever set policy because that is not the role they serve.

Random thought...... Just, well you know, for the baiting of it all.

And Bear in mind here I'm not American, nor anywhere close to being a lawyer in any language....
The RIAA seems from here to be an affiliation of major recording companies and largely seems to be among other things an agreement over how to pursue certain things, e.g. lawsuits, and could be construed to be a loose agreement on business practices.

Assuming that is the case, isn't this kind of co-operation anti-competitive and isn't there legistlation for that? I was under the impression some legistation like that applied to broadcasters for example.

(Sits back and waits for the "You just hate corporations because you want stuff for free" replies)

Re:

All day long, all you leeches do here is try to rationalize the fact that you rip off musicians. Everyone knows what you're doing and that you're too cowardly to admit it. So I'll keep coming here to remind people what's true and what are the usual bullshit excuses you freetards dream up.

Translation: Even though nobody at Techdirt advocates piracy, they must be lying, because they don't support my business model, and anyone who doesn't support my business model must be a pirate. If they deny it, they're just "too cowardly to admit it."

So, I'm going to come here and spam the comments with my red herrings, day in and day out, hoping to establish an association fallacy.

Advocating Piracy

I actually do advocate piracy, but thats a side point and irrelevant.

The real point is that it doesnt matter what you, me, or the courts say. The people choose what we want to do, and how we want to do it, and its pretty clear that right or wrong, anonymity and access have given us the tools to really display human nature. And human nature wants to collect ALL the music, and ALL the tv shows, and ALL the software.

In the last 100 years industry has gone from trying to sell us what we 'need' to trying to sell us what we 'want'. With the internet, we are able to get the things we want much cheaper (or the competing product). And instead of trying to make us 'need' their products so that we pay for it, they advertise how much we should want them. When that doesnt work, they sue us because we arent giving them our money voluntarily.

This would be bad if it affected a large percentage of us, but really its just the dying grasp of an industry that has outlived its usefulness. They dont scare me, they never have.

I was part of the piracy movement using UseNET, IRC DDCs, and was a beta tester for the original napster. We are ALL still around, along with about 500 million new users in the last 10 years. The only significant blow the industry has ever done is killing mAvEn. And that was 1 group, that was quickly replaced.

So, morals aside, its 'WRONG' (incorrect, not morally) to try and stop this, because after 10 years of doing everything possible to prevent it, the 'piracy industry' has grown about 100000% since 1997 and isnt getting any smaller.

Mike has been trying to get this point across for years without saying the obvious. Piracy is the future, get with the program. Or dont, we couldnt care less because you dont scare us.

Re: Re: Random thought...... Just, well you know, for the baiting of it all.

There are no laws against oligarchies, unless you can prove that they're acting in concert.

Isn't that one of the functions of the RIAA, to allow the companies to act in concert for, say lobbying purposes? Might be fun to watch someone try and argue in court that the RIAA itself is "anti-competative behaviour"..... Probably not enough lawyers with a death-wish to fight against that kind of money/politics though even if you could make the legal argument *sigh*

Re: Re: Re: Random thought...... Just, well you know, for the baiting of it all.

Isn't that one of the functions of the RIAA, to allow the companies to act in concert for, say lobbying purposes?

They're a trade organization, and trade organizations are not themselves illegal. Nor are industry lobbying groups. This is because, in theory, trade organizations act on behalf of an industry rather than a sole company.

Of course, the RIAA only represents the Big Four, not the industry as a whole, so the theory is different from actual practice. Still, unless you can prove that the companies act in concert to defraud or reduce competition, it's not illegal.

Re: Advocating Piracy

At least you're can claim the prize of "least cowardly", as you've admitted the obvious.

But your justifications are, of course, weak.

Lack of enforcement is the only reason it got to where it is. And there is no getting around the fact that every bit of news that comes out these days is going against you and the net is closing in. We're all aware that sociopaths and nerds will always bend over backwards to pirate, but the days of rampant, flagrant theft are over.

Re: Re:

Times change, ideally for the better. The point is not that preferential treatment for the wealthy is something new, but that corporate influence is on the rise. A free Internet is a threat to these corporations and they're doing anything in their power to cripple it in their favor. That's the part that's new.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I am currently a member of the ABA and the AIPLA, and at various times have been associated with the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), the AIAA, and other lesser known industry associations. None of them have ever set policy because that is not the role they serve.

Heh. Not all industry associations work the same way. When it comes to legal strategy, rest assured that the RIAA is the key driver behind many of the major labels' strategies.

Re: Re: Advocating Piracy

You say "piracy" harms music, JPJ. Prove it. Give me a complete chain of causality with documented evidence for each step. Show me, if you can, how the sharing of a specific work directly impacts the artist in a negative way. Because there is tons of evidence - much of it collected here - that such an act in fact has the opposite effect, helping the artist rather than hurting him or her. Or have you never heard of free promotion and distribution before?

You say "piracy" has only flourished due to lack of enforcement. Might I ask, then, what level of enforcement you would find acceptable, that you in your delusional state of mind might actually think could make a dent in what [b]hundreds of millions of people[/b] are doing. And how do you propose to prove they actually did what you accuse them of? There are any number of ways to be anonymous on the web, more than perhaps you realize.

It would seem you are in favor of stifling civil rights and privacy rights and destroying true technological progress in order to preserve your outdated business model. So sad. You're obsolete, JPJ, you and your kind. You just don't want to admit it.

Re: Re: Re: Sorry Mike

"Word has it that there are a TON of nice days ahead in the next few months."

I love how optimistic you are. It is not going to last. You will get COICA, you will get ACTA, you will get 3 strike in most a ton of countries. The problem with all these new laws is multi fold. First the timing, your business (Labels, studios, etc) will have failed before they can be implemented. Second even if implemented new technologies and software will come about because of these laws that will make them useless. Third the backlash from kicking peolpe off the internet, and criminalizing infringement will cause IP law to brought to the forefront. The last thing you want is a spot light shined on IP.

You are running down a path that reduces liberties at a time in US history where people are pushing back against government intrusion and regulation. When in order to save less than 1/2% of the worlds economy you are willing to violate the first, fourth, and fourteenth amendments.

Since you do not learn from history you will repeat it. Here is what will occur. You will alienate fans. Loose artists to the "Free" movement because they will not want to be associated with you. The 14-25 year old range, will become the 14-45 year old range with them buying no music.

Yes, "There are a TON of nice days ahead in the next few months" the problem is they are not nice days for you. You will have your perceived victories, you will celebrate, you will party, then a short while later when the trends haven't changed and have accelerated, you will realize that it was a very shallow victory indeed.

Re: Re: Re:

You mean Masnick? He doesn't want to lose any money from his advertisers. He's here for $$$, just like those big bad labels are.

Advertising only represents a relatively small portion of our revenue, and how does one "lose" advertising money anyway? Either companies want to advertise or they don't.

And, um, if I was just here for the advertising money, I'd be writing about the latest celebrity scandals or the latest apple announcements. Those sites get a lot more traffic and a lot higher ad revenue than anything I do.

Re: Re: Re: Advocating Piracy

Sure, here's a real example- I'll leave out the band's name, but I swear on the graves of all my dead relatives this is true.

In 2006 this band put out their 3rd album on a long established and sucessful indie label. Reviews for the disc were great, and their touring schedule was full for most of the year. They'd never been more popular. Yet sales of their releases had been falling throughout the decade, and checks from album sales were dwindling to next to nothing. They noticed that their music was all over the file sharing sites. This started to create budget problems back home. Touring is generally a break even or slightly better/ worse proposition, so whatever money they came home with starting to be eaten up by bills and rent the moment they returned from any tour, thus leaving them broke. So instead of being able to use non- tour time to write new songs they had to get jobs to pay their bills. This delayed any new music coming from them. And they couldn't get away from the jobs to tour as much, if at all. The music therefore slowed, then stopped.
Meanwhile, the label they were on lost sales on all their other acts too, and had to lay off their entire staff except for 6 people.

Re: Re:

You do an entertaining cariacture, JPJ.It'sa fabulous though isn't it? My only problem is I can't work out the genre....

I was thinking Panto ("I'll get Alladin if it's tha last thing I do... and you'll never stop me you horrible children! Booo! Hissss!"). But now I'm wondering "Really Cheesy B-movie Sci-Fi" ("Unleash the Death Ray I shall boil them all aliiiivee! Bwah! Ha! Ha! HAAA!!!"). Or maybe even Scooby Doo? ("And I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those pesky file sharers and their meddling debate")

@ Crazy 'ole JPJ

Its not a healthy situation, so maybe the record label shouldnt eat up so much of their revenue, or they need to budget properly (like every other person and business out there)

But, and this is important, there is no such thing as 'lost sales'. Ask a salesman, the only sale you 'lost' is the sale you failed to sell. They are not entitled to ANY sales, they have to 'sell' us on their music. And the bands that do do this (or pay someone to do it properly) are prospering as they should.

Basically its the record labels job to sell their music, but they arent doing it. Instead of doing a better job of this, they are blaming 'piracy' for it so as to not lose their clients (musicians). The real solution is to hire to some sales people and sell some freaking music, but its just too obvious for you and yours.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Advocating Piracy

Explain to me how the above was caused by piracy. You can't - because it wasn't. Even if their music was not "all over the file sharing sites," the result would be exactly the same.

People aren't failing to buy CD's because of piracy. They do it for the same reason they don't buy cassettes or vinyl: it's an outdated format. What's the first thing people do after they buy a CD? Rip it to MP3. Not so they can pirate it, but so they can collect music on their hard drives, put them on their iPods or phones, etc. (which is perfectly legal). The CD they paid for sits on the shelf, unused.

In the meantime, people are spending more on competing entertainment like DVD's or video games. There's only so much a consumer can spend.

They also aren't re-purchasing the music in a different format, like they did in the 90's when CD's came out. Even if MP3's never existed, sales would still be declining, merely because of that.

You know something else that will stop people from buying music? Being treated like criminals. Crippling the music with DRM that at best will prevent you from legal uses, and at worst will brick your computer.

And the general knowledge that most musicians won't make any money from artist royalties either way. That buying music supports businesses that rip off artists, sue grandmothers, hate technology, and try to pass unconstitutional laws.

None of the above have to do with piracy. All are due to the fact that labels are bad at business. They don't give consumers what they want, so consumers don't buy.

Yeah, it sucks that your friends had to get day jobs. But don't blame the pirates.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Advocating Piracy

Expounding on this: Let me tell you another story.

Like your friends, I have to support my music by getting a day job. Hopefully unlike your friends, for the past decade, my day job was in the print industry. (I made large-format prints for architects and subcontractors.)

That industry is decimated due to digital technology. The ease of digital copying and distribution has pretty much rendered the entire industry obsolete. Because of this, I lost the job I'd held for ten years, and soon afterwards the print shop went out of business.

None of this was due to piracy. None of our clients were doing anything illegal.

This is exactly the same boat the recording industry is in. That industry is in denial, a denial fueled by the scapegoat of "piracy." But it's not due to piracy. It's due to obsolescence.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"None of Techdirt's commentors advocates "ripping off musicians." Not even the minority that advocate piracy."
LOL
sorry Karl, but piracy by definition is ripping off musicians. And it's illegal.
But here you are, day after day, defending it.
What does that say about you?
I know how much I've done for music, thanks. And everyone can see what you're doing for it.

Re: Re: Re: Does JPJ kill kittens?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The lack of scarcity is because illegal piracy has disrupted the supply."

The abundance of artists has actually disrupted the demand. Over the past 10 years the number of artists people had access to has gone from a couple thousand, to a couple million. Go check out facebook and myspace.

JPJ: when you talk about legal and illegal you are completely missing the point. It's not stoppable. Already with a torrent tracker set up properly you can encrypt your traffic and run it through port 80 and no one can even tell if its legal or not. It's become clear that no laws and no network control can stop file sharing, so spending money trying is wrong no matter how 'right' it is.

You call Mikes scarcity talks 'bs' except its the core of capitalism. Adam Smith wrote about this in plain language, and you would well served to reread Of Wealth And Nations, because you clearly missed the point the first time around.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The lack of scarcity is because illegal piracy has disrupted the supply.

The lack of scarcity is because digital music files are non-rivalrous and non-excludable.

"Disrupted the supply?" More records are being produced now than ever before. The "supply" is doing just fine.

Why do you defend the illegal ripping off of artists?

I don't defend the legal ripping off of artists, either. That's why I don't like traditional label deals.

As far as "ripping off" artists: It's not like every time someone downloads a song, that artist's bank account balance decreases. The only thing possibly lost was a sale - and that's not necessarily true, e.g. when people buy the album later, or when they buy other albums by the artist because of it. Or when piracy is used by fans to expose other people to the artist, resulting in a larger fan base (potential market) - like mix tapes did.

Seeing as pirates buy more music than non-pirates - a fact you consistently ignore - these are all real possibilities.

But even if you do believe it "rips off" artists, then what? All the legislation you're bragging about won't result in additional sales. Even if it doesn't shrink the market by making fans lose interest in music (or, like three-strikes laws, prevent fans from buying digital music), then people still won't buy, for reasons I gave and you ignored.

Why are you against artists making money? Because that's obviously what you want, you're just too cowardly to admit it. Right?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Advocating Piracy

In 2006 this band put out their 3rd album on a long established and sucessful indie label. Reviews for the disc were great, and their touring schedule was full for most of the year.

Good for them. What did they do to engage with their fans and give them a real reason to buy?

They'd never been more popular.

Yes, but popularity is not the same as actually connecting with fans.

Yet sales of their releases had been falling throughout the decade, and checks from album sales were dwindling to next to nothing.

Normally, when a business sees dwindling sales of a product, they realize it's time to offer a *different* product. Why didn't this band? It sounds like their label or their management failed them. Out of curiosity, were you their management or the label?

They noticed that their music was all over the file sharing sites.

That's true of any band these days -- including many who have embraced it and are making more money because of it, so that's clearly not the issue here. Non sequitur.

This started to create budget problems back home.

No, the budget problems where the band/mgmt/label's failure to adapt a good business model.

Touring is generally a break even or slightly better/ worse proposition

If you do it the traditional way, sure, but there are smarter ways to tour these days that help you make money. We've covered many of them here. You should read up on them.

So instead of being able to use non- tour time to write new songs they had to get jobs to pay their bills. This delayed any new music coming from them. And they couldn't get away from the jobs to tour as much, if at all. The music therefore slowed, then stopped.

Yeah, that sucks. Sounds like they should have fired their mgmt and found a better label to work with.

Meanwhile, the label they were on lost sales on all their other acts too, and had to lay off their entire staff except for 6 people.

Sounds like the label didn't recognize the market realities and didn't embrace new opportunities well. Sucks for them, but you gotta keep up.

Explain to me how the above is a healthy situation.

Well, in capitalism, most people believe that companies that don't keep up and deliver what the market wants to pay for will fail. So, that does seem like an example of healthy capitalism at work.

I mean, I understand it sucks for the band in question, but you're really off-track in trying to blame that on file sharing. It's clearly not since plenty of other bands in similar situations have done fine. Sounds like the band/label/mgmt screwed up royally.

And, so far, assuming you're somehow connected to any of them, it appears they didn't learn the lesson and instead are blaming the wrong thing. Really sad. Most people actually learn from their mistakes.

Really????

To JPJ
Sorry about your friend's band. But, there are a few points I'd like to make.

First, I hereby swear most solemnly, that I have never in my entire life downloaded a song illegally. Unless you have PROOF otherwise, I'd request you refrain from accusations against me personally.

Second, you are making arguments without backing them up. I would point out that this does not convince anyone of anything, and makes those you insult think you're a troll, and nothing more. Other posters here have backed up their arguments with links. Please either back up your arguments with facts or don't expect to be taken seriously.

"Countless studies"? OK please list them, where are the links? And I'm talking about independent 3rd party studies, not RIAA press releases. If you won't back up your arguments with FACTS (not just a vague anonymous story full of pre-suppositions and unsubstantiated conclusions)why should anyone listen to you? Lets face it, you didn't offer any hard facts in that story that the rest of us could verify.

So, what are you, a poster or a troll? Your reply will determine how you are viewed.

Um... Mike...? Anyone?

Does anyone know anyone in the industry who's actually an advocate of copyright/trademark etc who's genuinely willing to debate the points?

I like this site and the articles and am inclined in it's direction but I don't totally buy it especially some of the solutions. It'd be nice to see some reasoned debate in the comments sometimes rather than just the occasional nugget of questions or opinions. The outrageous unsubstantiated statements on both sides are entertaining as hell for a while, but for genuine debate it's mostly one sided. A bit of balance would be nice sometimes.

Understand it's a tough sell.. lion's den and all that.... but would add something I think.

Re: Re: Re: Prohibition

And once again, you've managed to miss the point. The POINT is that if people don't agree with a law, they won't follow it. Remember that society ultimately dictates the law: If they want it changed, it eventually gets changed, one way or another.

"Illegal downloading rips off musicians."

Wrong. It rips off labels, which in turn rip off musicians. I don't engage in file-sharing myself, since my contempt for labels has reached the point that I basically don't listen to label music at all anymore, but I fully applaud those that do. It's certainly preferable to seeing the same people donating MONEY to the scum-suckers.

Re: Re: LOL

Relevance is at the end where he continues to travel the world and makes money for rent. He doesn't have to make the millions from the old system. He's known for his rhymes. No, he's not an Eminem, but he does the exact same thing:

Connect with Fans - Gives them a reason to constantly see what he comes up with, promoting his albums on radio and

Reason to Buy - He's pretty frank and honest about people checking him out, who he has beef with and who he doesn't. He also continues to tour (making appearances for X amount of money) among other things. Could he survive on a record label stretch of 9 months of touring then a record like Xzibit?

I doubt it. And judging from the fact that more and more artists have other things to sustain them (Beyonce and J-Lo clothing and perfume lines, Jay-Z and his Rocawear, Xzibit with being a TV star, hell Justin Bieber with nail polish) it's safe to say that music gives them more opportunities than it did before. Just because you can't see that doesn't change those facts.

Re: Re: LOL

Techdirt definition of trolling: anyone that makes a valid point that goes against the party line here.

No, we're more than open to "valid points" backed up by evidence. However, people keep asking you for evidence, and all you return is insults. Tough to take you seriously that way.

None of the examples any of you have ever given have worked for any lasting period of time. None. Zero.

Well, considering most of the technologies that made them possible only came about recently, it's kinda pointless to demand long term proof. But, there is plenty of evidence that they do work, and as the technology gets better, there's no reason (at least you certainly haven't given any) why such models won't continue to work quit ewell.

Eventually all those bands will either be unknown, unsuccessful or have to cease making music full time because they can't afford it.

How do you figure that? The ones we've pointed out are making more money than they would have otherwise. Besides, as we pointed out the other day (which you never actually responded to), the VAST MAJORITY of people who went the path that you prefer ended up "unknown, unsuccessful or have to cease making music full time because they can't afford it." So your model seems just as bad. In fact, the evidence suggests your model is *worse* because it's a LARGER PERCENTAGE of bands that end up that way with your model, since it involves a much greater % of money going to third parties rather than the artists.

You think you can pretend otherwise because you're ignorant of the realities of surviving as a musician.

This is the silliest claim of all. JPJ seems to believe that only he knows the reality of being an artist, and all the ACTUAL artists who comment here or who we've done case studies about somehow don't count. In the meantime, despite multiple people asking JPJ still won't say who he is or what he does in th eindustry.

There is no model that exists that can work when based around free music. Sorry.

Other than all the ones that are working. No need to be sorry. Those who are embracing these models are doing great. You should try to join them.

Re: Um... Mike...? Anyone?

Around here, when Mike posts anything about IP, things go one of two ways:

- Either you have like 10 comments with a mix of "yeah, I agree", nonsense and someone cracking a joke.
- Or you have a million comments with some nut like JPJ or TAM disrupting the whole conversation, basically turning it into a flame-war.

You might get lucky one day, and sometimes someone from the "other camp" might show up with some valid points. But this is extremely rare. Try searching the the archives and you *might* find a productive conversation with someone from the industry, especially in the articles about infinity/scarcity and the CwF+RtB model (those in the "From the Techdirt Archive..." on the right of the main page, if memory serves me right).

I agree that a constructive debate would be nice. But this is like discussing religion or politics. Both camps think they are right, and everything usually turns into a flame war. Shame...

Re: Re: Um... Mike...? Anyone?

Option 3 is conversations with Suzanne Lainson (I may not have spelled that right). She's not pro-copyright, but she does disagree with Mike a fair bit, and in a totally reasonable way.

It is fascinating that nobody has ever come on here and provided strong evidence of any of the following:

- Copyright as it exists today is at or near the ideal level to maximise production of creative works
- Piracy hurts artists
- Pirates don't buy music
- It's impossible to compete with piracy
- Artists cannot succeed long term without relying on copyright
- It's possible to stop piracy
- DRM is effective

I think TD is a fairly high profile blog within this topic. It stretches my credulity to suggest that there are cogent, evidence-based arguments for all these things, and just nobody has bothered to show up here and present them, or send them to Mike in any manner.

The activities of the people who do argue demonstrates that it's easy to come on here and post anything you want. So where are the good arguments? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absense, but at some point you have to wonder.

Re: Re: Re: Um... Mike...? Anyone?

So where are the good arguments? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absense, but at some point you have to wonder.

Well that's the thing isn't it? You do. There must surely be arguments the other way. You may not believe them but they must be there mustn't they? All recording industry executives can't walk around all day thinking "It's all the pirates' fault, they're just a bunch of freeloading theives so f*ck them and we'll get them with the next law we get passed", do they? I mean whether they really failing or not they are big businesses, surely you can't get there being that blind can you?

Take my favorite complaint - DRM. As far as I can see, all it does is discourage people who want to use what they bought in a reasonable manner but can't. There doesn't seem to me to have been a DRM method that stops anyone with 2 technical abilities to rub together, never mind anyone interested in the money possible in large-scale commercial piracy (similar rule as identity fraud - the more "value" in a piece of ID, which in ID case is determined by the perceived security of it, the more money will be applied to crack it).
And yet they persist. Why? They must have a reason, even if it's only "One day DRM will work and everything will be alright again". I'd love to hear what it is and why, wouldn't you?

Re: Re: Sorry Mike

Re: Re: Re: Sorry Mike

What creator rights are you for, Mike?

Too many to list in one place. The right to free speech for their creativity. The right to make use of the tools available for creating, making, distributing, promoting and earning money for their music. The right to put in place smart business models. The right to compete in an open marketplace. The right to perform their works. etc...

The mistake so many IP lawyer types make is the false belief that "creator rights" means protectionism. But that's not a creators' right. That's limiting other creators. I'm against that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Um... Mike...? Anyone?

All recording industry executives can't walk around all day thinking "It's all the pirates' fault, they're just a bunch of freeloading theives so f*ck them and we'll get them with the next law we get passed", do they?

Based on their actions, I would guess a lot of them think something very much like that.

I mean whether they really failing or not they are big businesses, surely you can't get there being that blind can you?

You can get there by being completely unable to deal with change, because they haven't had to for many, many years, until about 15 years ago.

Take my favorite complaint - DRM.

Take my DRM. Please! ;-)

And yet they persist. Why? They must have a reason, even if it's only "One day DRM will work and everything will be alright again". I'd love to hear what it is and why, wouldn't you?

The only almost sort-of semi-rational reason I've heard for DRM is that it discourages casual copyers. Those who have little technical knowledge and not much desire to copy, but who would if it were easily available. Even if this is true, which it might be, that crowd is going to shrink, and probably fast. It's only going to get easier and faster to find and download whatever you want. So if you can't figure out how to back up your shiny new Blu-ray, you can just download a copy. This approach to DRM ignores that future.

It's also possible they're hoping DRM becomes more effective in the future (I think the opposite is more likely) and want people to be used to DRM in the meantime. Or that it's an emotional decision because they want to "protect" their "property" and it has nothing to do with rationality.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Um... Mike...? Anyone?

The only almost sort-of semi-rational reason I've heard for DRM is that it discourages casual copyers. Those who have little technical knowledge and not much desire to copy, but who would if it were easily available.

See that's what I'd like someone in the know to explain and/or debate. I could guess at that reason too... but it doesn't explain where they see the trade off between discouraging casual copiers and losing the same people customers to a frustration process:

Cool, I'll buy the new [Insert band here] CD...
Oh but wait, I want it on my iPod... that's OK I'll buy the CD anyway and rip it.
Oh.. hang on I think that since 1997 or something I'm not supposed to do that am I? Perhaps I shouldn't...
Um.. I think I'm still allowed to because it's um.. a backup copy and I'm allowed that.. I think... well at least I'm buying it....I'll give it a go
Oh dear it seems to have broken my computer when I put the CD in.. I guess I better buy it off iTunes instead even though I wanted the cover and everything
Hang on a minute.. my computer's a CD player too.. aren't I even allowed to play it like a CD without copying it???
Oh well, I got it off iTunes that's ok.. except wait my car's MP3 player doesn't support the iTunes song. That's no good I want to play it in my car.
Oh that's OK I'm "allowed" to burn a CD of it - I can use that in the car.. seems a bit of a waste of my car MP3 player though... you'd think they'd all be compatible or something what the hell is "no rights to play song" mean anyway? I bought it didn't I?
That's all cool now.. got some more songs to go with it and burnt another disk with them all on.. this is great
Oh... I left the CD in the sun and it doesn't work any more and it won't let me burn another copy of the original song
It's getting worse... my computer died and the new one won't play the songs I bought.. it's asking for some password... I didn't know I had a password my mate set all that up for me.
And now I can't even add anything to my iPod because it says it has to wipe all the old stuff off first and it's the only copy I've got
OH S*D IT! I think I'll just ask my mate to get me a copy. He's good at that stuff.

A little contrived perhaps but real problems none-theless. Is it ivory-tower thinking that doen't see this as a problem? A nefarious plan to turn the primary business model towards litigation rather than music production? Is there, deep in the fundamental heart of the universe, a "valid" (or at least explicable) reason? Enquiring minds want to know....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Um... Mike...? Anyone?

I think it's just denial. A lot of people are putting up with it now, so they assume that will continue to be the case forever, because they don't know what else to do. I think that's an incorrect assumption though. I doubt many 20 year olds have any issues with DRM, for example.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And what, precisely, is this magic label that doesn't make their initial outlay 100% recoupable out of the band's 10% or so royalty? You have to sell about 800,000 albums through a traditional label before you make a DIME from them...although this is the traditional major label model, most indie labels don't dare try anything different.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

response to John Paul Jones. Your response will not work, because JPJ:

[X] is an asshat
[X] ignores any legitimate rebuttals
[X] will just call you names
[X] never provides evidence that can be debated
[X] is financially vested in a legacy industry
[X] isn't interested in honest debate

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

[X] Sorry dude, but I don't think it will work.
[ ] This is a stupid response, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
[ ] Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Random thought...... Just, well you know, for the baiting of it all.

so how does their lobbying not come under the noted exceptions?

The right to free speech includes the right to petition the government. That's why trade organizations can lobby Congress.

Now, they can only petition the government to adopt or enforce general laws. They still can't use the law to target specific business entities, adopt non-competitive technical specifications, or target specific purchases by the government.

And, of course, this only applies to lobbying the government. If they collude in an economic sense, they're breaking anti-trust laws.

The problem is that it's hard to prove "collusion" without a paper trail. For example: All of the recording contracts that new artists sign are the same "boilerplate" contract. No major label will allow you, for example, to retain the copyright on your sound recordings (not on your first contract, anyway).

Is this collusion, or just an "industry standard?" Without actual evidence to the contrary, the law must assume the later.

Of course, to an artist, it doesn't make any difference. They have to assign their copyright, or else they won't be signed by any member of the oligarchy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Advocating Piracy

You sound like you're trying to convince people that when an album is ripped off that it's never a lost sale.

It's usually not a lost sale. The highest reasonable number I've seen as a "substitution rate" is 10% (that is, for every 10 people that download an album, 1 person would have bought it otherwise).

That does not mean, however, that the band lost money. At least some of these people will take the money they would have spent on the album, and spend it on the band in other ways (e.g. they bought a T-shirt, bought a different album instead, paid to see the band live, etc).

If this is the case, the band has not lost any sales. So, if even one out of ten "pirates" is this type of person, the band breaks even. In fact, it even comes out ahead, since bands keep more money from an $18 T-shirt than they do from an $18 CD.

Since, despite your insults, reliable studies show pirates are more inclined to buy music, I'd say this is at least possible.

Re:

It is a P2P network, which is why it is still working. The author of this article must not have really understood what he was writting about. Limewire can stop support of the service, but that doesn't mean that the millions of copies of the limewire installer files in the internet can't be installed onto computers. In fact, all of my friends report that they can still access and use their limewire programs like normal.

this is bull crap

this is a buch of crap because you think you can shut down limewires p2p sharing network because sharing music is legal its what you make of the music you download because you can find bluegrass, country, rock & roll, old timey music rock music, classic country, classical music and all kinds the music that changed america and all were about everyone listens to music if you dont than something is wrong with you because it gets you dancing in a rythmic motion it can be the song that made your girl fall in love with you or the song that was playing when you got married

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Spreading the Famosity

By choosing to act upon these applications, certain governments are decidedly making these apps more popular and well known. More peopel ar hearing about these things resulting in more users and even more P2P clients. The fire is spread and you cannot put it out.